D&D 5E 5e witches, your preferred implementation?

[Garthanos]

Welllll, I'd make the argument (And have made the argument) the Battlemaster is too Fighter-y still

I'm just saying, if the Battlemaster was sufficiently filling the Warlord gap, then Kibbles Warlord wouldn't be as popular as it is.

Being able to build "Warlord" with an intelligence dump stat seems missing something as is not having one with the ability to spur team imitative.

That said I have been coming to the conclusion that improving the fighter may be perhaps the easiest route to improve the Battlemaster/Warlord.

For instance

• Want warlords to act like themselves all the time? Add a way like scanning for openings tie this to investigation(int)/insight(wis) perhaps, for the battlemaster to trade an extra attack for a CS die.
• Want a Warlord that is rewarded with more potent warlord tricks by taking risks (The bravura build from 4e), then allow the fighter to gain benefits like gaining an extra attack by triggering an opportunity attack.
• Want the Warlord to help everyones initiative let Fighters have a battle cry to do so when they roll good init (let non-dex fighters have better init perhaps from any mental stat it will make a Str/Cha or Int build more viable)
• Want the warlords to affect more allies/enemies with maneuvers add ways for the fighter to do that, etc. (improve the multi-targeting of effects for the fighter)

 

[RealAlHazred]

I see we're arguing in circles. So, I'll be clear.

I want a witch class that is encouraged, mechanically, to do witchy things like brew potions in cauldrons, subtly curse people, and cast a variety of subtle spells that manipulate and enchant others.

I have a Magic-User (Wizard) class which is mechanically encouraged to study magic tomes during occasional rest periods, acquire new spells by whatever means, and not wear armor or use weapons.

I have a Fighter class which is mechanically encouraged to wield weapons and use tactics in battle, wearing the best armor they can get.

I have a Thief (Rogue) class which is mechanically encouraged to be sneaky, learn a wide variety of trades, and get out of the thick of things.

I have a Warlock class which is mechanically encouraged to blast magic laser beams at first opportunity and cast a few very flashy spells as soon as a threat appears. I guess that's exactly what I wanted to begin with. I'm glad you guys kept just telling me, "The warlock is exactly the class you were looking for all along;" because, obviously that's the perfect implementation.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see we're arguing in circles. So, I'll be clear.

We've got a steady influx of (apparent) dudes who want to come in and reiterate the same points. Pretty sure this thread is linked somewhere and we're getting a low level brigading.

 

[Sithlord]

Vuman Battlemaster Fighter 3, Martial Adept feat, Combat superiority F/S, Noble background.

Maneuvers (6 sup dice per short rest):

Commanders Strike (ally makes an attack)
Commanders Presence (buffs Intimidation, Persuasion, Performance)
Distracting Strike (grants ally advantage)
Maneuvering Attack (moves ally into position)
Rally (heals ally)
Tactical Assessment (buffs History, Insight and Investigation)

High Cha and Str. Dumps Dex (heavy armor). Persuasion, Intimidate, History, Insight, Athletics

With an average of 2 combats per short rest, and each combat averaging roughly 3 rounds each, thats enough dice for 1 manouver every turn.

From there he can keep adding maneuvers and dice (and increasing the dice size) or move into Crown Paladin for +Cha to saves aura, Bonus action channel divinity healing of allies with turn the tide, divine allegiance HP substitution, Bless, Warding bond, Heroism, Aid etc) all fluffed as martial abilities, and very thematic.

We have a Warlord already, but that doesnt stop people from repeatedly trying to recreate the wheel.

Because they have to see the name “warlord”. It doesn’t matter that other classes can be a warlord. Same thing goes with witch and alchemist and shaman.

 

[Shardstone]

The argument that we can't want new things because we can make half-assed version of those things with the current set of rules is such a non-argument. I don't understand it. Everyone here acknowledges we can cobble together some kind of mess and call it a witch or warlord. Why do people act like we're so absurd for wanting a class that fits our needs instead of having to stitch together a Frankenstein golem? Isn't 5E all about being simple and streamlining? Nothing says streamlining like me having to take 5 different classes to make up what I want for once concept.

 

[RealAlHazred]

We've got a steady influx of (apparent) dudes who want to come in and reiterate the same points. Pretty sure this thread is linked somewhere and we're getting a low level brigading.

Sure, but I was waiting for somebody to tell me, "That's just the Warlock. The Warlock class is mechanically encouraged to do those witchy things!" And then I could just wash my hands of the whole thread because the guy who says that is determined to disagree no matter what you say.

 

[Garthanos]

Because they have to see the name “warlord”. It doesn’t matter that other classes can be a warlord. Same thing goes with witch and alchemist and shaman.

Heh not really Battlemaster is a fine name for Warlord, however to some it seems like handing someone a dex build Eldritch Knight with a Staff and leather armor and saying here is your wizard now take this feat and that feat to get other supporting features.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Subclasses do a lot of work in this edition, and people seem to just ignore their existence. They literally just released Witherbloom, a new super witchy subclass that can be applied to two different classes, to warlock for obvious reasons and to druid for more wiccan/celtic style witch. And even if this exact subclass wouldn't perfectly capture all your witchy needs, others could easily be created. One of the big strengths is the classes being very customsable, so there is no need to create a huge amount of new full classes. There are already six main caster classes in the game, there is no need to add more.

 

[Greg K]

Subclasses do a lot of work in this edition, and people seem to just ignore their existence. T

I ignore subclasses, because most of the offical ones are, in my opinion, garbage in concept and/or mechanics- especially, those in supplements, but even several in the phb. Several others suffer from not being granted at first level

 

[Sithlord]

The argument that we can't want new things because we can make half-assed version of those things with the current set of rules is such a non-argument. I don't understand it. Everyone here acknowledges we can cobble together some kind of mess and call it a witch or warlord. Why do people act like we're so absurd for wanting a class that fits our needs instead of having to stitch together a Frankenstein golem? Isn't 5E all about being simple and streamlining? Nothing says streamlining like me having to take 5 different classes to make up what I want for once concept.

Because if they give people everything they want in a warlord class and give it a different name people will be on forums saying we really need a warlord class.

 

[Sithlord]

Heh not really Battlemaster is a fine name for Warlord, however to some it seems like handing someone a dex build Eldritch Knight with a Staff and leather armor and saying here is your wizard now take this feat and that feat to get other supporting features.

Your going to hate me for this. I love staff as a weapon. I let my players with access to martial weapons wield a staff for 2d6 damage or 1d12. And I have eldritch knight doing that right now.

ducks for cover.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Your going to hate me for this. I love staff as a weapon. I let my players with access to martial weapons wield a staff for 2d6 damage or 1d12. And I have eldritch knight doing that right now.

Technically, you love the weapon you've replaced the staff with.

 

[Greg K]

Any Warlord class, in my opinion, also needs to be able to handle the "Lazy Warlord" (e.g. Frodo if I recall correctly), the Mowgli, and Prince/Princess (or was this another Lazy Warlord) builds. It has been a while since I have been in 4e forum threads, but I think I recalled them correctly. (edit: I am sure @Garthanos will correctly if I got them wrong)

 

[Sithlord]

Technically, you love the weapon you've replaced the staff with.

Nah. I just let martials do more damage with the staff. Wizard wields staff it does 1d6. Fighter wields same staff it does 2d6 or 1d12.

 

[Garthanos]

Your going to hate me for this. I love staff as a weapon. I let my players with access to martial weapons wield a staff for 2d6 damage or 1d12. And I have eldritch knight doing that right now.

ducks for cover.

heheh I did not pick the idea entirely at random you did do an upgrade (an appropriate one it seems) - you sort of gave it a supporting feature. call it a War Mage if you like it isnt the Wizard the typical hypothetical player wanted.

 

[Garthanos]

Any Warlord class, in my opinion, also needs to be able to handle the "Lazy Warlord" (e.g. Frodo if I recall correctly), the Mowgli, and Prince/Princess (or was this another Lazy Warlord) builds. It has been a while since I have been in 4e forum threads, but I think I recalled them correctly. (edit: I am sure @Garthanos will correctly if I got them wrong)

Those were some of them hybrid lazy lords. Prince(ss) was what I called it when I made up the lazylord build ie its the standard concept heh. It was basically simultaneously developed concept on here and on WOTC forums (the guy on WOTC forums called it lazylord).

 

[Sithlord]

heheh I did not pick the idea entirely at random you did do an upgrade (an appropriate one it seems) - you sort of gave it a supporting feature. call it a War Mage if you like it isnt the Wizard the typical hypothetical player wanted.

Oh yeah. Agree completely. I would do this for any of my martials not just an eldritch knight.

even before I did this i would confuse players by having them attacked by people using staves and no armor. They would automatically think they were monks or something else. They couldn’t fathom that there were good fighters in villages that couldn’t afford or have armor or swords and just fought with a staff. And a staff was part of training for many peope for combat once upon a time. I like using spewed too.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In non-warlord news, the next season of Dimension 20 is going to be set at a magical school. Like a lot of Dimension 20 arcs, it looks like Misfits and Magic is another contemporary world D&D game, rather than Ye Olde Medieval Pastiche.

 

[Yaarel]

Being able to build "Warlord" with an intelligence dump stat seems missing something as is not having one with the ability to spur team imitative.

That said I have been coming to the conclusion that improving the fighter may be perhaps the easiest route to improve the Battlemaster/Warlord.

For instance

• Want warlords to act like themselves all the time? Add a way like scanning for openings tie this to investigation(int)/insight(wis) perhaps, for the battlemaster to trade an extra attack for a CS die.
• Want a Warlord that is rewarded with more potent warlord tricks by taking risks (The bravura build from 4e), then allow the fighter to gain benefits like gaining an extra attack by triggering an opportunity attack.
• Want the Warlord to help everyones initiative let Fighters have a battle cry to do so when they roll good init (let non-dex fighters have better init perhaps from any mental stat it will make a Str/Cha or Int build more viable)
• Want the warlords to affect more allies/enemies with maneuvers add ways for the fighter to do that, etc. (improve the multi-targeting of effects for the fighter)

I wonder if Warlock mechanics is the best chassis for the Warlock concept, where "spells" are maneuvers, most of them at-wills and per short rest.

I want the Psion to use the Warlock chassis. It would be cool if the martial Warlock did too.

Compare how the Wizard, Cleric, etal, all use the same Wizard spellcasting chassis. It seems fine if several classes use the Warlock chassis.

 

[cbwjm]

I also don't need Ranger (Fighter or Druid alternate depending on edition), Barbarian (Ranger or Fighter doe), Paladin (Cleric or Fighter doe), or in some editions Druid (Cleric).

----

As for dictionaries, I'm all for using them in most cases, but they do really badly for D&D classes. Wizardry is Sorcery, Sorcery is using magic with power of an evil spirit, Witchcraft is Sorcery.... And then go for Paldin, Druid, Bard, etc... Warlock is far closer to Witch than a lot of other class names and when most kids googled Warlock they'd see well, Sorcerer (see Witch), because all of them are on the same line of a Thesaurus. But if WotC is trying to be inclusive and wanted Warlock to be the Witch, they shouldn't have male-washed it and chosen the less popular name and would have given the tropes more clearly in various subclasses.

Best use for dictionaries or a thesaurus is to find a cool name for a class, could've been how sorcerer was chosen when it was made for 3e.